Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ronald Reagan and What I Got Wrong [Note to Mitt Romney: really, itís you, not them. Seriously.]
RedState ^ | 11/20/12 | Erick Erickson

Posted on 11/20/2012 12:10:08 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Every person who talks and writes about politics gets stuff wrong. I’ve gotten my fair share wrong. But what I think I got most wrong in Campaign 2012 was the damage Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark would do to him.

It may seem obvious, but bear with me.

Mitt Romney was talking off the cuff to a supposedly off the record group of donors and muddled several data points together, ultimately telling the tale of the 47% who won’t vote for him for any reason. He was referencing the 47% who don’t pay taxes and interwove it with a 47% of locked in Obama support. The statement was a mess.

I didn’t think Mitt Romney would be as hurt by the statement as he was because I assumed Romney had misspoken in an off the cuff way. I assumed Romney would clarify that he knew many of those who have government assistance did not actually want the assistance, but needed it. I assumed he’d make the case that he’d help those people get off the government dole and back into work.

In other words, I assumed Romney believed what I believe — many of those people are good people who fell on hard times and are not of the same class of people who will vote for Barack Obama for free stuff. I was absolutely wrong. Romney not only believes completely what he said as he said it, he reinforced it with his post election analysis of his defeat blaming gifts to various classes of people. If that was true, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, Romney had plenty to gift to plenty strapped to the back of marching elephants.

Note to Mitt Romney: really, it’s you, not them. Seriously.

What does this have to do with Ronald Reagan? As Dan McLaughlin pointed out, every Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election except John McCain. Think about that for a minute. Every nominee of the party cast by the media as an insane fringe of conservatives actually opposed, from the left, Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Each of those candidates ran successfully as heirs to Reagan or, when they failed, as rich Republicans who believe in some sort of noblesse oblige. George H. W. Bush, embracing his own identity outside the shadow of Reagan in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor. There really was no theme of elevating the poor from poverty or the middle class to the rich. The theme was the care and comfort of men through the technocratic efficiencies of government and a conservative disposition. Romney did that this time too, going so far as to put his more conservative running mate in a witness protection program for candidates.

Reagan in 1980 ran a campaign on the explicit understanding that government was an obstacle to the poor and middle class elevating themselves from poverty and the role of a Reagan Administration would be to get the government out of the way. George W. Bush largely ran his 2000 campaign in a similar vein, but cast as a compassionate conservatism that quickly morphed into a big government conservatism once elected.

Republicans are not successful when they run campaigns as the rich patrician out to make government more efficient so it can be more helpful. Republicans win with conservative populists who run as men who pulled themselves up in life fighting big government and its cronies.

Fortunately for the GOP, in all this talk about the end of the GOP, people overlook that from here on out for the next decade or two we’ll be in an era of Republican politician who was raised in the era of Reagan and supported either Reagan or the idea of Reagan. Mitt Romney will probably be the last Republican nominee who ever opposed Ronald Reagan. That is a very good thing. From here on out our candidates will most likely speech Reaganese, even if not in a Reaganesque way, without sounding like they learned it from Rosetta Stone because each of them will have formed their world view during Ronald Reagan’s America.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brilliant; cinos; election2012; failure; gingrich; mittromney; newt; newtgingrich; nomoreconspiracies; nomorecrazies; nomoreparanoids; reagan; ronaldreagan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last
A brief respite of grownup sanity, in the midst of far too much shrill, hysterical hair-pulling and bug-eyed, looney tunes conspiracy mongering.
1 posted on 11/20/2012 12:10:16 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Thank you!


2 posted on 11/20/2012 12:28:05 PM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Each of those candidates ran successfully as heirs to Reagan or, when they failed, as rich Republicans who believe in some sort of noblesse oblige.

The problem with noblesse oblige is that it always entails droit de seigneur.

3 posted on 11/20/2012 12:30:01 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasota
You're welcome. ;) It's nowhere nearly as much fun, certainly, as running around and shouting "ba-DOW! ba-DOW!" at shadowy enemies, like so many children playing "G.I. Joe vs. COBRA"... but: considerably more constructive, ultimately.

Mittens' wholly predictable (and predicted) loss to Herr Zero has driven a significant number of formerly more-or-less sane Republicans full-bore, weapons-grade conspiracy theory batsqueak insane.

4 posted on 11/20/2012 12:35:26 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

He makes good points. Romney’s post-election musings seem to indicate that he doesn’t really believe in the power of free market capitalism and traditional values to pull people out of poverty and government dependence. If you don’t really believe in the conservatism and the Republican platform, can you please step aside and make room for a leader who does?


5 posted on 11/20/2012 12:36:43 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I think the remark was innocuous and what the MSM did with it was definitely NOT... like so much of their ‘reporting’.

I blame the MSM almost entirely.

Nothing will ever work again in American politics as long as we have a ONE PARTY MEDIA-with a criminally free hand in determinging our leadership for us.

6 posted on 11/20/2012 12:38:08 PM PST by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Well the Republican establishment has forced two RINO’s down our throats in 2008 and 2012 by telling us a Conservative “can't win” in the general election and both times the RINO’s have gone on to lose. Do you think maybe in 2016 we could run an actual conservative? Obviously this RINO thing isn't working out..Or will they triple down on failure, after all...McCain and Romney might just not have been quite liberal enough. Who's to the left of McCain and Romney anyway?
7 posted on 11/20/2012 12:40:15 PM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I have complete faith and confidence that the GOP-e will not learn from this lesson. Comprehensive immigration reform is back on the table. And so-called social causes off. That and making the wealthy pay their “fair” share will become the new Republican mantra.


8 posted on 11/20/2012 12:42:57 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: apillar
Who's to the left of McCain and Romney anyway?

Van Jones, Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich; any one of whom the CINOs would ecstatically endorse in 2016, over a West or a Palin.

That's the shape and size of the problem, right there.

9 posted on 11/20/2012 12:43:57 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

BOTH parties are now to the left of center...the judgement of G-d is upon us.


10 posted on 11/20/2012 12:45:15 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I have complete faith and confidence that the GOP-e will not learn from this lesson.

Given the sheer number of screechy, pop-eyed postings lately, re: "Karl Rove and UnSkewedpolls and Dick Morris Were All Really Right and Mittens Actually WON, Dammit!"... I'd say that's a depressingly accurate assessment, Jim. ;)

11 posted on 11/20/2012 12:48:23 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall
He makes good points. Romney’s post-election musings seem to indicate that he doesn’t really believe in the power of free market capitalism and traditional values to pull people out of poverty and government dependence.

This was clear from way before he got the nomination. Remember his statement that he'd index the minimum wage to inflation during the primary? Romney's not a free market guy.

At the same time I don't agree with Republicans or conservatives dismissing the argument that people who are net tax RECEIVERS are likely to vote for Obama and the Democrats. Many people will vote on their short-term self interest. The fact that Obama has been trying to radically expand the food stamp program and other welfare benefits and market them aggressively to more people should tell you that. He wouldn't be doing it if it didn't benefit him politically.

Stopping the expansion of these welfare programs should remain a high priority for conservatives. And we have to do all we can to explain why our policies are economically better for everyone in the long-term. But there's only so much we'll be able to do to combat human nature and its tendency to favor short-term benefits over long-term. Which means we need to do everything we can to stop the expansion of the welfare state even if it damages us in the short-term. Caving in on it is pointless, because as Laura Ingraham smartly points out, it would just launch a bidding war with the Democrats, who would offer bigger and better welfare benefits than us every time.

12 posted on 11/20/2012 12:52:32 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: apillar

If you can’t beat McCain and Romney in a room full of connservatives, how can you beat obama with the weight if the MSM against you?


13 posted on 11/20/2012 12:58:06 PM PST by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: apillar
Well the Republican establishment has forced two RINO’s down our throats in 2008 and 2012 by telling us a Conservative “can't win” in the general election and both times the RINO’s have gone on to lose. Do you think maybe in 2016 we could run an actual conservative?

Not gonna change. The media thru it's elites own the election & it is not gonna be a conservative.

14 posted on 11/20/2012 12:58:06 PM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

LOL!


15 posted on 11/20/2012 1:01:27 PM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
47% who don’t pay taxes

Eric, you got this wrong too!! You must clarify that to say INCOME taxes!!! THAT is what pissed off a large group, because they know that they pay SOME taxes.....
16 posted on 11/20/2012 1:02:32 PM PST by Eagle of Liberty (Be the Enemy Within the Enemy Within...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Good post, thanks. Erickson has an astute take on the false ‘heirs’ to Reagan. GHWB was forced on RR by the GOPe and actually did as much damage as possible from within the Administration. The Bush bastards and their camp followers should be throw under the bus/train/garbage truck!
Stoopid, stoopid compassionate commie-crats!


17 posted on 11/20/2012 1:14:04 PM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar

I think they’ve already settled on Jebbie, and the little Republican primary voters will fall dutifully in line again.


18 posted on 11/20/2012 1:17:44 PM PST by Theodore R. ("Hey, they must all be crazy out there!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I just gom-smacked by the uselessness of the supposedly numbers guy Paul Ryan in explaining how the R&R team were going to put the economy back on track with their miraculous voodoo!!! Did Ryan become persona non grata?


19 posted on 11/20/2012 1:19:37 PM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I think they’ve already settled on Jebbie, and the little Republican primary voters will fall dutifully in line again.

I solemnly guarantee you, if so, that each and every Mittens acolyte hereabouts will be recycling all of the following arguments four years from now, without even the merest scintilla of self-awareness or shame:

"THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES!!!"

"HE VOTES WITH US 85% OF THE TIME!!!"

"CONSERVATIVES CAN'T ACTUALLY WIN ELECTIONS!!!"

"YOU'RE ALL JUST SOCON PURISTS!!!"

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

20 posted on 11/20/2012 1:24:27 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: apillar
“Or will they triple down on failure, after all...McCain and Romney might just not have been quite liberal enough.”

That's what I hear coming out of the GOPe - that they have to cater to Hispanics, give them what they want, give the blacks what they want, give, give, give, instead of clearing the way for these people to help themselves.

Rubio says one of his best friends is Jeb Bush. If they run together, expect it to be to the left of Romney.

21 posted on 11/20/2012 1:30:24 PM PST by Marcella (When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The problem with noblesse oblige is that it always entails droit de du seigneur.

Sheesh. Mille. Zette would smack my knuckles for that one.

22 posted on 11/20/2012 1:32:27 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Well written article - thank you for posting this sanity.

I caught a lot, and I mean A LOT, of flack on here for predicting that Romney wouldn’t win for several reasons, not the least of which was his attitude of entitlement.


23 posted on 11/20/2012 1:54:56 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Who's to the left of McCain and Romney anyway?

Unfortunately, Jon Huntsman.

24 posted on 11/20/2012 1:59:17 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
The paranoids and conspiracy theorists and huffy, red-faced hysterics will all wander off eventually, most likely, as their claims (of necessity) steadily grow wilder and more over-heated, and less tethered to observable reality.

So... there's that to look forward to, at any rate. ;)

25 posted on 11/20/2012 1:59:46 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Behind the Blue Wall

If you don’t really believe in the conservatism and the Republican platform, can you please step aside and make room for a leader who does?

- - - - - -
But...but...but...it was Romney’s TURN!!

That is the biggest problem in the GOP and Romney ran with the attitude of ‘I’m not the other guy’ and expected the GOP base to just roll over and many did. He was partly right in that.


26 posted on 11/20/2012 2:02:52 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

You are right of course, they will, and they will play the fear card.

May I asked if you voted and for whom? Just curious, I won’t flame you.


27 posted on 11/20/2012 2:10:31 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

yep.


28 posted on 11/20/2012 2:13:35 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
No worries; I'm not even remotely ashamed of my decision. ;) Conservatives all the way down, statewide; with the top slot left blank.

The sole advantage, really, of living in a state which hasn't gone red since Ronald Wilson Reagan -- the comparative luxury of being able to vote a conservative's conscience.

29 posted on 11/20/2012 2:14:59 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

The sole advantage, really, of living in a state which hasn’t gone red since Ronald Wilson Reagan — the comparative luxury of being able to vote a conservative’s conscience.

- - - - - -
I live in a state that hasn’t gone blue since FDR, so I had the same luxury. I voted for conservatives, left one state race blank (because the incumbent endorsed Romney) and voted for Virgil Goode for POTUS.

After over 20 years (since I could vote) of fighting for and supporting the GOP, I left it this year and changed to Constitution party. I left over Romney or more precisely, the GOP left me.


30 posted on 11/20/2012 2:17:17 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I think you’re right that Obama has purposely put as many people on the dole as possible in order to make them into reliable Democratic voters. I’ve actually seen it up close and personal through my job, where I’ve witnessed people being literally bribed with little freebies like food and gift cards to spend an hour with a social worker going through every single possible federal welfare program to see if they qualify.


31 posted on 11/20/2012 2:18:01 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
BUMP to your post:

I blame the MSM almost entirely.

Nothing will ever work again in American politics as long as we have a ONE PARTY MEDIA-with a criminally free hand in determinging our leadership for us.

We can be as pure as we want, as Reaganesque as we want and it won't matter a hill of beans if we don't alter the balance of power with the democrat/media complex.

32 posted on 11/20/2012 2:25:12 PM PST by Lakeshark (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

“...will have formed their world view during Ronald Reagan’s America.”

Whenever I go off on a rant my kids tell me “Dad - YOU should run for President!” I tell them that there already was a president with those ideas - RR.


33 posted on 11/20/2012 2:27:36 PM PST by 21twelve (So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I didn’t think Mitt Romney would be as hurt by the statement as he was because I assumed Romney had misspoken in an off the cuff way. I assumed Romney would clarify that he knew many of those who have government assistance did not actually want the assistance, but needed it. I assumed he’d make the case that he’d help those people get off the government dole and back into work.

In other words, I assumed Romney believed what I believe — many of those people are good people who fell on hard times and are not of the same class of people who will vote for Barack Obama for free stuff. I was absolutely wrong. Romney not only believes completely what he said as he said it, he reinforced it with his post election analysis of his defeat blaming gifts to various classes of people. If that was true, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, Romney had plenty to gift to plenty strapped to the back of marching elephants.

Excellent point, though the last sentence looks garbled.

What does this have to do with Ronald Reagan? As Dan McLaughlin pointed out, every Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan opposed Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election except John McCain. Think about that for a minute. Every nominee of the party cast by the media as an insane fringe of conservatives actually opposed, from the left, Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Each of those candidates ran successfully as heirs to Reagan or, when they failed, as rich Republicans who believe in some sort of noblesse oblige. George H. W. Bush, embracing his own identity outside the shadow of Reagan in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor. There really was no theme of elevating the poor from poverty or the middle class to the rich. The theme was the care and comfort of men through the technocratic efficiencies of government and a conservative disposition. Romney did that this time too, going so far as to put his more conservative running mate in a witness protection program for candidates.

Not so much. It sounds like he's twisting things to fit his interpretation, fitting all the winning candidates in one pattern and all the losers in another.

It doesn't work. Dole was no "patrician aristocrat." George W. Bush did his share of promising social programs.

Romney may have been a "patrician" in some ways, but the attitude expressed in his 47% quotes is very different from the standard "patrician aristocrat" approach.

One possible counterargument to all this: not every candidate can do the Reagan thing, just as not every candidate can do the FDR or JFK thing. Imitations don't always produce the same results as the original.

Erick has some good ideas, but he ought to have somebody read his stuff over before publishing it.

34 posted on 11/20/2012 2:29:06 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

Romney thought he knew what conservatives wanted to hear from him....that’s what happens when you have no core beliefs, you try to say things you think people want to hear, and as usual, with disastrous results.


35 posted on 11/20/2012 2:31:59 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

The lapdog Obama media would have manufactured “something” out of anything Romney said, labeled it a “gaffe”, and beat him senseless with it. The lamestream media fancies itself relevant; and aims to use what’s left of its influence to assure that no Republican, and certainly no Conservative will EVER be elected again if they can help it.


36 posted on 11/20/2012 2:33:32 PM PST by Twinkie (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Nothing will ever work again in American politics as long as we have a ONE PARTY MEDIA-with a criminally free hand in determinging our leadership for us.

I hate to burst your bubble for ya pal, but Reagan got his message out through a media that was a true monopoly wrt liberalism. Limbaugh was brand-spankin' new and with that one shining exception, almost every single media outlet was liberal as the day is long.

Now, with the internet, and many, many conservative outlets, Romney had it way better than Reagan could have dreamed of.

*ROMNEY LOST because he is not a Conservative*... Never was... In fact, as this article clearly states, Romney spent his whole career opposing Conservatism.

Next time, try a Conservative instead of a mere Republican, and watch the Conservative juggernaut rise up.

The sweet sound of liberty is the clarion call. It cannot be sung by one who mouths the words and can't hold the tune.

37 posted on 11/20/2012 2:36:54 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

RINO File.


38 posted on 11/20/2012 2:38:53 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Okay so in 2016 we get a candidate who is photogenic and espouses Reaganism. His or her opponent is another Obamaton who espouses socialism. We lose. What then?

I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but we had a president with one of the worst records ever. Maybe the worst. He's been awful. And we couldn't beat him. I'd like to see a Reaganist candidate next time, but there's no guarantee that candidate will win. Sure, Romney should have raised the banner of conservatism, but he's not far wrong saying there's just too many parasites now.

39 posted on 11/20/2012 2:39:56 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

We may not like what Romney said. It may have cost him, and us, the election. It may have cost us the Senate. But was he lying? I’ve seen people mad, but I haven’t seen anyone dispute his claim. The election would seem to prove his point. The first step in defeating the Democrats in the next election is to be true to ourselves. Romney may be entirely wrong, but let’s see the proof.

“If you understand yourself and you understand your opponents, then in one hundred battles, you will never be defeated.”


40 posted on 11/20/2012 2:40:45 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

*ROMNEY LOST because he is not a Conservative*... Never was... In fact, as this article clearly states, Romney spent his whole career opposing Conservatism.

- - - - —
Nice to see common sense coming back to Freep. I was a bit afraid of getting zotted for posting the same thing a few months ago.


41 posted on 11/20/2012 2:42:32 PM PST by reaganaut (Kyrie eleison...Christe eleison...Kyrie eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
We may not like what Romney said. It may have cost him, and us, the election. It may have cost us the Senate. But was he lying? I’ve seen people mad, but I haven’t seen anyone dispute his claim. The election would seem to prove his point. The first step in defeating the Democrats in the next election is to be true to ourselves. Romney may be entirely wrong, but let’s see the proof.

Republicans won in some states with high numbers of people on welfare or food stamps. At least some of those 47%ers voted for Republicans because of social issues.

Also, in the past the argument that "a rising tide lifts all boats" encouraged some voters to support lower taxes on people richer than themselves in the interests of bringing back prosperity. Perhaps such an approach could also work for many of Romney's 47%.

42 posted on 11/20/2012 2:56:48 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Yep.

I supported Mitt, wanted him to win, thought he’d win. We’ve had, I think, an unspoken agreement to disagree about that the way we had a spoken agreement to disagree about McCain.

But I think Erickson is right here. Mitt was part of the problem. It’s time for Generation Reagan to get in there and be part of the solution.


43 posted on 11/20/2012 2:57:36 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (There is no tagline. You must seek your answers elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut
Nice to see common sense coming back to Freep. I was a bit afraid of getting zotted for posting the same thing a few months ago.

Thanks for the compliment - Been here all along, tho I think a lot of folks (me among them) don't bark as much once the Republican fanbois get the bit in their teeth - I am tired of fighting the same ol crap...

No use barking at them if they can't hear anything. Maybe once their echo chamber collapses around them, but not until.

Too bad they won't remember... Then FR could be used to back one candidate and become mighty for the cause.... But they won't remember a dang thing... Watch and see.

44 posted on 11/20/2012 3:04:50 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
We may not like what Romney said. [...] But was he lying?

dunno... Was his mouth open?

45 posted on 11/20/2012 3:07:48 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: x

I don’t know if Romney’s statement is wrong or right. I’m just saying that we should be honest about it. If 47% of the voters won’t change their mind based on how things are now, then we have to make some adjustments.


46 posted on 11/20/2012 3:13:59 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: x
"Erick has some good ideas, but he ought to have somebody read his stuff over before publishing it."

Dude, he blows. He spent the lede making the countervailing argument and then says:

"Mitt Romney in 2012 all ran as patrician aristocrats who intended to make government more efficient to help the poor."

Ridiculous. He never said any such thing. IF anything, he said f the lazy, the government is already taking care of them -- which was always followed with his intent to revive the working class with jobs.

47 posted on 11/20/2012 3:39:40 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Own It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Horse manure. Romney’s mistake was not taking that “47%” remark and elaborating that yes, there is a huge contingent of eaters and moochers who will vote for Ubama simply to get more of the “free stuff” confiscated for them from working taxpayers by their rat politicians and handed over in exchange for votes. Instead, Romney ran like a coward and tried to distance himself from his own (accurate) remark.

There’s a reason the African communist Ubama never brought up the “47%” remark in the debates.


48 posted on 11/20/2012 3:45:29 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Mittens’ wholly predictable (and predicted) loss to Herr Zero has driven a significant number of formerly more-or-less sane Republicans full-bore, weapons-grade conspiracy theory batsqueak insane.

My God! Finally, someone who understands me!


49 posted on 11/20/2012 4:14:04 PM PST by Segovia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
"But there's only so much we'll be able to do to combat human nature and its tendency to favor short-term benefits over long-term."

Very true. Perhaps the saving grace will be the level of control the statists will have to impose to keep things limping along - e.g. death panels. A good percentage of the people motivated enough to vote may want "free stuff", but don't like to be micromanaged to that level.

But then again, I think it'll play our exactly like Atlas Shrugged.

50 posted on 11/20/2012 4:23:34 PM PST by uncommonsense (Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson